The Iraq War’s Consequences for America
Rauf Naqishbendi
August 30, 2007
The War on Terror which propelled America into the Iraq War will leave us with a host of economic, social, political and military burdens that current and future generations alike will have to bear. Suffice it to say that time is working against the United States and the longer this chaos continues the more onerous its consequences will be to surmount. Therefore, it would be prudent for the Bush administration to reevaluate its Iraq policy.
The War on Terror has broad ramifications on the world’s economy, stability and security. The US shouldn’t have entered into it alone; rather, it should have been directed by the United Nations since it is a world crisis and requires international cooperation. In order for the US to take the lead on their own successfully, they needed a leader who could articulate the cruciality of the undertaking and induce the world to rally behind them. Unfortunately, the current White House not only failed to unite the world and foment international cooperation, but it estranged most of its old allies through impetuous and coercive policy, causing America’s respectability in the world’s political theater to decline. In contrast, in the Gulf War, then President Bush Sr. used diplomacy to convince several countries to engage in the war, and let those without armies defray the costs. For example, Japan paid the US more than half a trillion dollars and Germany chipped in more than a hundred billion dollars. These efforts made the Gulf War a profitable war, the first of its kind in history. At the time, some economists were suggesting making our military complex a for-profit organization. As can be seen, humility and clever diplomatic maneuvering with other nations is essential to success in major military engagements, whereas a policy of arrogance and self-imposition will guarantee isolation.
The main purpose of the War on Terror was to strangulate terror organizations. Inadvertently, our failure has emboldened them and broadened their support base. After all our trouble, the world is by far a more dangerous place than before. President Bush chose this war as his legacy; given the outcome he will be going down in history as one of the most unpopular presidents ever. The next President will have to clean up the mess, rather than be able to accomplish his or her own agenda. The scariest part is not the damages he has incurred on the world, which are known to all, but rather the uncertainty of what his next action will be: will he attack Iran?
Militarily, the Iraq War has revealed the true power of the mighty American military and its inefficacy to win a protracted war and combat insurgencies, and it has proved the extravagant expenditure warfare entails. In almost four years it has cost roughly six hundred billion dollars; another three years and the price tag would top a trillion dollars. And that isn’t all; the recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group chaired by James A. Baker, III state, “The United States must expect significant ‘tail costs’ to come. Caring for veterans and replacing lost equipment will run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Estimates run as high as $2 trillion for the final cost of the U.S. involvement in Iraq.”
When nations are engaged in a protracted war, it is incumbent on the government to advocate the necessary measures to finance the war. Ironically, President Bush and his Republican lawmakers have denied the sense in this and instead have bestowed wealthy Americans with a generous tax cut. It is insane to grant a tax break to the wealthy when historically in wartime taxes have been increased. Poor Americans are fighting one of the toughest wars in our history and sacrificing their lives, while wealthy Americans are getting a tax break. Where is justice and equality in this policy?
The elongated war in Iraq has demoralized American armed personnel and caused them emotional and psychological distress. According to an Army study “those deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan more than once - 170,000 so far - have a 50 percent increase in acute combat stress over those who have been deployed only once.” The Washington Post reported on March 6 that “Army studies have found that up to 30 percent of soldiers coming home from Iraq have suffered from depression, anxiety or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.”
As the number of solders killed or wounded increases, the frequent combat tours bring more psychologically troubled soldiers to the frontlines. Moreover, even with unprecedented incentives army recruits are dwindling in both quantity and quality. Should we continue to tread in this path, the need for a draft will need to be considered. Military experts agree that in a year or two there will not be enough troops for a war engagement. Prior to the Iraq War, the Pentagon claimed that the US Army had the power to fight several frontiers concomitantly, but experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved otherwise. As the Iraqi Study Group reported, “The American military has little reserve force to call on if it needs ground forces to respond to other crises around the world.” This would be the most significant consequence of today’s war should we be faced with war on another front.
Despite all these consequences, the Iraqi situation is neither a morass nor a quagmire if an effective political solution were to be employed. The breakup of Iraq on its ethnic and religious fault lines is just such a solution. This is desirable to both Kurds and Shias who make up 80% of Iraq’s population. So far the military solution has failed dismally; thinking and acting along these same lines will bring more of the same. Therefore, a different mindset in dealing with Iraq is imperative. As Albert Einstein said, “The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.”
The War on Terror has broad ramifications on the world’s economy, stability and security. The US shouldn’t have entered into it alone; rather, it should have been directed by the United Nations since it is a world crisis and requires international cooperation. In order for the US to take the lead on their own successfully, they needed a leader who could articulate the cruciality of the undertaking and induce the world to rally behind them. Unfortunately, the current White House not only failed to unite the world and foment international cooperation, but it estranged most of its old allies through impetuous and coercive policy, causing America’s respectability in the world’s political theater to decline. In contrast, in the Gulf War, then President Bush Sr. used diplomacy to convince several countries to engage in the war, and let those without armies defray the costs. For example, Japan paid the US more than half a trillion dollars and Germany chipped in more than a hundred billion dollars. These efforts made the Gulf War a profitable war, the first of its kind in history. At the time, some economists were suggesting making our military complex a for-profit organization. As can be seen, humility and clever diplomatic maneuvering with other nations is essential to success in major military engagements, whereas a policy of arrogance and self-imposition will guarantee isolation.
The main purpose of the War on Terror was to strangulate terror organizations. Inadvertently, our failure has emboldened them and broadened their support base. After all our trouble, the world is by far a more dangerous place than before. President Bush chose this war as his legacy; given the outcome he will be going down in history as one of the most unpopular presidents ever. The next President will have to clean up the mess, rather than be able to accomplish his or her own agenda. The scariest part is not the damages he has incurred on the world, which are known to all, but rather the uncertainty of what his next action will be: will he attack Iran?
Militarily, the Iraq War has revealed the true power of the mighty American military and its inefficacy to win a protracted war and combat insurgencies, and it has proved the extravagant expenditure warfare entails. In almost four years it has cost roughly six hundred billion dollars; another three years and the price tag would top a trillion dollars. And that isn’t all; the recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group chaired by James A. Baker, III state, “The United States must expect significant ‘tail costs’ to come. Caring for veterans and replacing lost equipment will run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Estimates run as high as $2 trillion for the final cost of the U.S. involvement in Iraq.”
When nations are engaged in a protracted war, it is incumbent on the government to advocate the necessary measures to finance the war. Ironically, President Bush and his Republican lawmakers have denied the sense in this and instead have bestowed wealthy Americans with a generous tax cut. It is insane to grant a tax break to the wealthy when historically in wartime taxes have been increased. Poor Americans are fighting one of the toughest wars in our history and sacrificing their lives, while wealthy Americans are getting a tax break. Where is justice and equality in this policy?
The elongated war in Iraq has demoralized American armed personnel and caused them emotional and psychological distress. According to an Army study “those deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan more than once - 170,000 so far - have a 50 percent increase in acute combat stress over those who have been deployed only once.” The Washington Post reported on March 6 that “Army studies have found that up to 30 percent of soldiers coming home from Iraq have suffered from depression, anxiety or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.”
As the number of solders killed or wounded increases, the frequent combat tours bring more psychologically troubled soldiers to the frontlines. Moreover, even with unprecedented incentives army recruits are dwindling in both quantity and quality. Should we continue to tread in this path, the need for a draft will need to be considered. Military experts agree that in a year or two there will not be enough troops for a war engagement. Prior to the Iraq War, the Pentagon claimed that the US Army had the power to fight several frontiers concomitantly, but experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved otherwise. As the Iraqi Study Group reported, “The American military has little reserve force to call on if it needs ground forces to respond to other crises around the world.” This would be the most significant consequence of today’s war should we be faced with war on another front.
Despite all these consequences, the Iraqi situation is neither a morass nor a quagmire if an effective political solution were to be employed. The breakup of Iraq on its ethnic and religious fault lines is just such a solution. This is desirable to both Kurds and Shias who make up 80% of Iraq’s population. So far the military solution has failed dismally; thinking and acting along these same lines will bring more of the same. Therefore, a different mindset in dealing with Iraq is imperative. As Albert Einstein said, “The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.”
Print
Email
